Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "The core of how people first learn to do stuff — programming, music, writing, etc. — is to imitate others. It's one of the best ways to learn. Apparently a bunch of students using MIT's educational Scratch programming language understand this. But not everyone else does. NAMCO Bandai sent a takedown notice to MIT because some kids had recreated Pac-man with Scratch. The NAMCO letter is pretty condescending as well, noting that it understands the educational purpose of Scratch, but 'part of their education should include concern for the intellectual property of others.'"

But in the vein of "IP", I want to educate them (yeah, I know, they're not reading this) about their assertion "part of their education should include concern for the intellectual property of others". NAMCO is the entity that needs to educate themselves. In the US at least, Pac Man is NOT their property! It's OUR property. It belongs to everyone. MAMCO merely has a limited time monopoly on its distribution.

It's also possible, that out of the blue, Google lawyers approach Namco, say they want to make a cool front-page gizmo that emulates a pacman game in light of the 30th anniversary, and works out a contract for the right to do it. Pacman being a classic, but old and relatively profit-less production at this point, probably allowed it for not much more than the name recognition, if that. Getting permission in advance is usually much easier, and besides, if pacman wasn't a realistic option, there are hundred

The whole thread that sprang from this post reeks of sadness. Look at all these nerds worship Google. Everyone just look at some AC's post a bit up the page. There's a copyright notification for NAMCO Bandai in the Google page. It makes it kind of obvious that Google licensed Pacman from NAMCO Bandai.

"Hey Google. Heh, you old search giant! Did you know-"-"Sue us and we'll make this court thing cost you way more money than you could possible make from the Pac-Man IP.""I was just about to tell you it was going to be a hot day today, so you might want to keep an eye on the airconditioning for your servers... Hey it's this late already? Geez gotta pick up my kids from school."

You never made burgers or chips in Home Ec? You never made a spice rack or a dustpan in Manual Arts? You never wrote a version of Tetris or Space Invaders (or Pacman) when you were learning to program?

We're monkeys. We learn by copying what others have done. When we fully understand what's already been done, we add our own little bit and then someone else copies us.

We learn by copying what others have done. When we fully understand what's already been done, we add our own little bit and then someone else copies us.

With art as with science, "if I see farther than other men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." I'm just glad patents don't last as long as copyrights, or technology would grind to a halt like art has. We've sold our culture to the money worshipers.

I wish copyrights were as short as patents; if so, this would be a non-issue. Lessig was right

Seriously, with Google's wallet, you could actually pay for a decent writer to rescue the farce that is Tekken. Don't get me wrong, I love the game as a fighter and it works quite nice as a Double Dragon style beat-em-up. But with those amazing cutscenes...it looked beautiful but they were re-donkey-lous.

Nina is what...40? 50 years old now? But she's the sex symbol and so some cryogenic-hibernation handwavium keeps her in her 20s. Paul does

also known as part of the reason big companies stay big is the number of lawyers (and quality thereof) they havePart of the reason that the TSCOG thing is taking so long is that they know that when it gets to the IBM caseTHEY ARE CARBON.

CEO to Corp Legal Dept: prevent me from looking stupid in court (or even getting to court as such)

Being lawyers, they should look at precedents to realize that "look and feel" isn't "intellectual property".

Namco would rely on Atari v. Philips [wikipedia.org], a lawsuit over a Pac-Man clone that Atari (Namco's console licensee at the time) won. The difference between that and other look-and-feel cases you're thinking of (Apple v. Microsoft, Capcom v. Data East, and Lotus v. Borland) is that Pac-Man is an identifiable character, and identifiable characters have stronger copyright protection than elements whose form is dictated by function or by stereotype. One could replace Pac-Man and the ghost-monsters with original chara

Well, my mom stood in line for an hour to buy the Atari 2600 version of Pacman [youtube.com] when it came out...and it SUCKED, even by 1982 standards. Namco should consider allowing the Scratch project to continue if for no other reason but as retribution for ripping off thousands of kids for that crappy port.

why aren't they being taught to respect the rights of others (fair use, etc)? why aren't they being taught that they can't have an indefinite free lunch in a free market? why aren't they being taught that broken business models propped up by government do everyone a disservice?

Because business is war, only restrained by law, and free of morals. Conventional morality is a liability in business.

The goal of business is profit, and if we would shape its behavior that must be done by imposing fear of punishment as a deterrent acts which we sufficiently disapprove. People respond to fear even if they are amoral. Be ready to inflict pain upon those you would have behave themselves.

... fear of punishment has effectively been removed under the protection offered by corporate entities. "We were just doing our job" goes all the way to the top when it gets written into law that corporations must "serve the interests of the share holders" whatever that is interpreted to mean at any given moment. No one is responsible for their actions in a corporation.

A vital part of human culture is that every generation of people can build upon the innovations of the previous. This is how we got from living in caves to reaching for the stars.
Greedy corporations are systematically destroying this mechanism for their own personal gain. This must be stopped or our civilization will have no future.
Lawrence Lessig dat a much better job at explaining this than I do: http://remix.lessig.org/ [lessig.org]

It is sad that one of the oldest gaming companies in the world has become so shortsighted as to punish a group of students using as inspiration one of the best games ever made, by a bunch of students that want to honor "Pac-Man" by recreating it on Scratch. Not to sell it but to learn. Shame on you Namco (and your lawyers), too bad non of your games now are worth even pirating otherwise i would wish that to you.

Is there a parallel here between seeing a piece of art and recreating it in a new medium. That new piece is like the old piece but created with your flair and in your medium. Isn't this exactly the same, just with programming?

If you're doing that you have to be mindful otherwise you could end up in trouble. A painting of a photo for instance, or vice versa, would almost certainly have problems, however it really depends on how it's done. L.H.O.O.Q is sort of the canonical example, as the minor changes make for a very distinct message rather than being a copy of the Mona Lisa.

There really is a good lesson about intellectual property to learn here. No, it's not exactly the lesson Namco wants these students to learn, but in this overly litigious society, it's important for everyone getting an education in computer programming to learn about patents, copyrights, and trademarks, both in terms of how they work and in terms of what their limits are. After all, you can create a Pac-Man-like game without treading on Namco's turf, and programmers should take some time to learn just how to do this sort of thing.

They are being a bunch of whiney crybabies because somebody copied an *IDEA* that they had... Ideas are not copyrightable.

If the person had actually copied any of Namco's original Pacman code to make the game, then there would be copyright infringement. But that doesn't seem to have happened here... somebody just recreated it (no pun intended) from scratch.

Admittedly, there is still the trademark issue of "Pac Man", and it's only on that premise that they should have any claim whatsoever, but I notice

What it APPEARS has happened here is that NAMCO have _assumed_, based on the appearance of the site, that what's running on the site is actually a Java emulator running the Pac-Man ROM. I say that because a) the loading sequence that Scratch projects show when invoked via the web looks just like the startup for such a Java emulator, and b) there are still lots of pac-man games on the Scratch site that haven't been affected.

Alternatively, it could be the case that an evil-minded student rival reported the page to NAMCO. See, letting people infringe on your copyright just by turning a blind eye is ok; but if there's an actual paper trail proving that you _knew_ about the copyright infringement, you HAVE to take some legal action to enforce it - otherwise, your copyright can be overturned.

There is definitely something deeper here than what has been reported, and it may be worth reserving judgment until we know what it is.

"if there's an actual paper trail proving that you _knew_ about the copyright infringement, you HAVE to take some legal action to enforce it - otherwise, your copyright can be overturned."

AFAIK, what you're describing happens only with trademarks, not copyrights, so I think you may be confusing the two. At most, people that the copyright holder does not take rightful action against might be construed as having been given implicit permission to copy the work, but that should not remotely affect future cases against other people.

you can copyright the look and feel of something. I would consider it analogous to making a new painting and saying "no you can't photocopy it, and no, you cannot hand-paint an identical replica". But, had they changed the stages, maybe added a new feature, or changes some play mechanic, and used slightly different images, then they would have been fine.

Should include what's broken with current IP law, so that when you get out of school and become a member of the voting public you can be sure to ask you congressman to fix it. Or run for office and fix it yourself.

Somewhere in the federally-declared disaster area I call an apartment, I have an old programming book that details remaking various arcade classics...on the Commodore 64. I'm not sure, but Pac-Man might have been among them. I guess times change.

The core of how people first learn to do stuff — programming, music, writing, etc. — is to imitate others. It's one of the best ways to learn

Correct, and I did my share of imitating other's games when I was learning. However, I didn't use the same name as the original, and I didn't take copyrighted artwork or music from the originals.

Using the same name is a clear trademark violation, and NAMCO has to tell them to stop, or they risk losing their trademark here.

As far as copyright goes, you can't copyright the idea of a "be chased around a maze while gathering prizes, and have power-ups that sometimes let you chase the monsters" game. However, there are a lot of ways to express that idea in a game, and copyright protects NAMCO's particular expression. There's plenty of room left for someone to do a similar game, but different enough that it incorporates no protected elements. From the descriptions i've read from people who played it before it was taken down, they did not stray far at all from NAMCO's particular expression.

A damned good case can be made that learning how to imitate the idea of something without copying the expression is an important skill that any professional or serious programmer should learn.

Intern to troll the interwebs for "violations": $40Information infrastructure to hand it to a lawyer without thinking about the consequences: $20,000,000Lawyer to send a nasty letter: $400Telling MIT how to teach: Priceless

Dang guys, you can't be doing this, I am a devoted fan.
I love Tekken, Soul Calibur, Even Ridge racer is still kind of cool.
NOT COOL GUYS, NOT COOL!
I am still mad at SF4 x Tekken(and vice versa), But I can deal with it.
I dropped capcom for all the stupid crap they have done.
Don't go pissing off your fanbase or we will spend our money elsewhere.

1) The non-commercial use of a trademark for educational purposes shall not invalidate said trademark2) The limited use of copyrighted media in a classroom setting consisting of low resolution pictures or video and music clips less than 30 seconds in length for educational purposes shall not be construed as a violation of copyright3) Any copyrighted book, magazine, DVD, or computer code, that has been out of print or removed from sale for at least 5 years may be duplicatedfor non-commercial,educational, a

Under current copyright law, educational use of copyrighted material is already protected under fair use. At least, it should be, but that determination is generally made by a judge, and he doesn't get to make the call unless someone is brave enough (and rich enough) to stand up to a herd of corporate lawyers.

Trademark law has no fair use provision, and is more likely to be enforced. It was not always as zealously enforced as it is now, because corporations did not have eyes and ears everywhere like they do

The game the Scratch user 124scratch made used graphics ripped off the pacman roms. It is IP theft. Of course, it's questionable if NAMCO should have sent the take down notice, because it's quite silly; this scratch game is not gonna keep NAMCO from profiting from pacman.

What NAMCO should have done is to require 124scratch to put a copyright disclaimer and a link to NAMCO's pacman games' site, encouraging them to try to mimic other NAMCO games.

This page is a detailed history of Pac Man, including history and information on the different ghosts move algorithms and speed changes... I find it interesting... Read it while you can, its hosted on comcast.....

Speaking of Google, I googled for user 124scratch, and found more of his evil deeds. If you thought NAMCO's response was bad, wait until Nintendo finds out that their beloved Donkey Kong has been reimplemented (a.k.a. pilfered!) Nintendo is on par with Disney for being protective about their copyrights.

My sons primary school teacher sometimes organizes the kids into a game she calls pac man. Its basically Tag with kids organized on a grid in the playground. Its real pac man in real life. I hope they don't get sued.

The reason answers exist in the back of math textbooks is not for cheating. They are there so you can check your methods and determine if you are going about things the right way.

One of my first programming experiences was making a tic-tac-toe game on the TI-83 my high school gave me. I knew the game already, I knew how it was supposed to look and work, and therefore allowed to me to concentrate on the method only. I had the answer, I just needed to figure out how to get there.

Scratch is a learning tool, aimed at elementary students, perhaps going into high school bit. Maybe the students (assuming they're students) shouldn't have posted the project online, but I encourage them to rip off every game they need to until they're comfortable enough to make their own.

Modded as troll...oh well. I was just pointing out that making new things is a more enriching experience, but read it as you want then.Ahem, whatever.But even if you are creating a new game, general basic mechanics like jumping, firing, steering a ship, etc, all have logical results that are, as the example you provide, just needing to figure how to get there. Even if doing something complex like material systems for items, movement of particles, or dynamic lighting, you do know the ideal outcome, allowing

It's really true that part of an education is in fact realizing that some people have IP that they will vigorously defend, and that you need to perhaps think more about creating something truly original in order to avoid this issue.

Except of course that the true purpose of all the "intellectual property", as the mega-corps and their paid-for politicos envision it, is to prevent exactly that and to ensure that no innovation is possible without it "belonging" to one of the "gate keepers" of all future progress who are busily jockeying for the position in this aristocracy.

And it is already nearly so since every thing ever invented or created always builds on the cumulative knowledge of all the discoveries and developments of the past and the recent past is nearly completely patented, copyrighted and locked down. Locked down forever - for all practical purposes from the point of view of a person living less then 100 years.

Without patents, we wouldn't have a large portion of the innovation of today; with the current patent system gone amok, we won't have the innovation of tomorrow. Too many rights given to inventors (i.e. 100 year copyright terms) is bad; too few rights (you can't profit from your ideas because someone will just take it immediately) is just as bad.

Without patents, we wouldn't have a large portion of the innovation of today;

That is merely an assertion of the "intellectual property" would-be landlords, in fact it is easily disproved: progress existed long before patents, in fact patents were present for something like the last 1% of recorded human history. And before you start talking about how fast that last bit developed, that has nothing whatsoever to do with patents but with easy access to and free exchange of information between scientists and inventors, the very thing that is now being restricted, combined with a critical mass of population density and transportation capabilities. Patents were simply inconsequential, having accounted for only a tiny part of the industrial output of that period, not to mention the fact that some industrial powers (I am looking at you USA) developed precisely because they ignored patents claimed by their former bosses (Britain in this case).

It also has to do with some motivation other than "less beatings" when you come up with something novel.

Look at the successes of a company like Stuller (jewelry business). Their operation is based around the premise that any employee who comes up with a way of saving the company money directly gets half of what the company saves for the first year. With that policy, they've become the single biggest wholesale supplier of findings and mountings, and one of the biggest for stones and finished jewelry. They

It also has to do with some motivation other than "less beatings" when you come up with something novel.

Which, according to the True Believers in the "free market" religion, can only be an all-encompassing, boundless, unstoppable and never satiated greed that burns within one's belly like a fire...

Of course most scientific discoveries were made out of a desire to discover and understand, not even a single penny entering the equation at any time, other then to fund the research with. Most inventions were

Given that you equate "motivation" with greed and the crap peddled on the late-night infomercials with "inventions" and "progress", further discussion is likely to be a waste of time.

Now, ignoramus, let me explain one thing, since you're obviously amazingly ignorant of the extent of infomercials: the footwear that doubles as a mop is obviously something that falls into your category of useless crap.

But have you seen the rotary power saw with two blades, one rotating in each direction, that is infinitely safer for firefighters to use on a crashed car because it doesn't emit sparks?

But have you seen the rotary power saw with two blades, one rotating in each direction, that is infinitely safer for firefighters to use on a crashed car because it doesn't emit sparks?

Except, of course, the counter-rotating blades do nothing whatsoever for sparks as they are the result of friction that does not disappear magically because you got two, three or twenty blades (advanced saws use fluid coolants and lubricants for that) and fire-fighters use hydraulic-operated cutting jaws because they allow f

I will make an (only one) exception in replying to an AC, further AC comments will be ignored as odds are that you are down-moderating me with your real account.

Your confusion stems from conflating "aesthetics" with corporate activities. While it is true that people might find one thing or another "attractive" those perceptions have long since became subject to manipulation by the "fashion" industry, with the aim of "creating market" for disposable crap. Jewelery is in the sa

It's very hard to prove anything either way. Our data on the effects of patents and copyright is quite limited, and some recent articles [slashdot.org] have suggested that traditional economic motivations suck for creative and innovative thinking. Also, legal exclusivity isn't the only way to secure a return on investments.

And it is already nearly so since every thing ever invented or created always builds on the cumulative knowledge of all the discoveries and developments of the past and the recent past is nearly completely patented, copyrighted and locked down. Locked down forever - for all practical purposes from the point of view of a person living less then 100 years.

Let's see it from an evolutionary standpoint: societies that allow themselves to be shackled, bound, and immobilized by excessive red tape (including all

Come on. New ideas, new worlds (especially in gaming) are made all the time! Where are the scary boogity boo gatekeepers that blocked Doodle Jump? Or Braid?

The fact that the "intellectual property" crowd has not yet achieved their desired goals completely does not mean that they are not in the process of doing so. With every 100+ year copyright the field of possible gaming ideas that are not covered narrows since there is a finite number of fundamental variations on the interaction with a game and claims o

Because maybe I'm projecting here, but I think that in the heart of most computer programmer nerds is the memory of how they started programming. So automatically the kid gets some slack, just because most us immediately think "haha, that reminds me of the time I tried to make _____ in BASIC, god my version sucked. Taught me to program though...."

So while I have some trouble imagining a scenario where a budding programmer accidentally violates the GPL or something, I think at t

So automatically the kid gets some slack, just because most us immediately think "haha, that reminds me of the time I tried to make _____ in BASIC, god my version sucked. Taught me to program though...."

I'd like to think that would have been okay. But, once you start posting this stuff on the web, rather than just enjoy it yourself, or among friends, you're inviting a C&D.

So while I have some trouble imagining a scenario where a budding programmer accidentally violates the GPL or something,

Yeah, I wasn't trying to think of an actual, specific situation, just a hypothetical reversal of the situation.

The point isn't whether these students could have ended up infringing Linux, but rather that copyright protection is a double-edged sword. Without it, idiots and their lawyers wouldn't be able to pester students whose goal is to learn and play, and Linus wouldn't be able to stop Microsoft from stealing his code.

IANAL, or an expert on the GPL, but let's just imagine the students had instead created a Linux distro in binary-only form, and didn't offer the source code as well. Or maybe they ripped off par

IANAL, or an expert on the GPL, but let's just imagine the students had instead created a Linux distro in binary-only form, and didn't offer the source code as well. Or maybe they ripped off part of the kernel, mashed it into a binary and called it their own proprietary kernel, and relicensed it under new terms. Theoretically, I'm sure there's some way of constructing a contrived scenario that would illustrate the point.

If Linux copyright owners sent a takedown notice to some students even if they were viol

Actually, I'm trying to make a serious point. IP laws don't just protect big, greedy, lazy corporations. They also protect everything under the various GPLs, the FreeBSD license, etc. That's the reason that Microsoft can't take Linux kernel 2.6.xx and call it theirs, or use it in a way that its license does not permit. You can't destroy one entity's copyright rights without damaging them for everyone.